This is like a trick question cause you need a chicken to lay an egg but an egg to have a chicken well I still dont know so keep posting what you think.(unless Kyouri makes this a poll then post stuff)

This is a question that bothers most people throughout most of their lives, because it is a philosophical question that puts one in the center of discovering what they believe. The problem is, it spirals outward.. just as the yolk does as it is forming.. to the point where people begin to question their beliefs over and over again. It's a very simple question, with a very simple answer. The problem is.. people ponder upon it instead of understanding it. It is what is called a Koan.. a very Zen thing.. for it cannot be explained, yet it can be known.

Logically it should be the egg, because this is where the chicken hatches from, but If you believe in Theory of Evolution then you'd know that chickens evolved from dinasaurs and evolution is process like this:

2 dinos mate and have retarded feathered baby unlike other dinos it's a bit smaller, its not a checken but a feathered dino so after other generations it gets form of a chicken. If you understood what I just wrote then you're a jenivious (lawl).

Well actually going on what you said wouldn't the egg come first cause the greatest change in all those generations of species that evolved from the dinosaurs, was during the time when they were in there eggs, cause if you think about how easy it is to disrupt the birthing process of birds(pesticides and other toxins) then wouldn't it be safe to assume that it is during those stages that eggs are being developed that the evolution would occur?

No, that's a confusion about speciation. What defines species is the ability to reproduce. If two organisms can produce an offspring which is capable of reproduction, they are the same species. What would have happened with evolution is that one "chicken" would have a slightly different baby, and when that baby grew up it would have a slightly different baby, and this process would repeat until the original "chicken"'s great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandchild would be unable to mate with the original ancestor "chicken" if it were still alive because of the amount of genetic changes that it had undergone. This organism would then be placed into its own species. The egg that this organism hatched from would have been the egg that the first chicken came from, because whatever layed the egg would have been able to mate with the ancestor, while what hatched from it would be unable to mate with the ancestor. The first organism of a new species...

Hmmm.. does this mean that we would not be able to mate with Neanderthals? We all know that they existed long before the supposed Adam and Eve dates in the Bible, and Darwin has proposed 'evolution', so wouldn't there be a genetic issue in mating? Yes, the biological exterior is different, but just how much does the interior change? I know that we don't really need our appendix (although if it ruptures we die without medical aid), and I can only assume that over time we may end up being born without it. But does that really negate the mating process between the ancestor with it and the descendant without it? They are in essence still both chickens, right?

It's not in the body that the problem is, it's in fertilization. The plasma membrane of the egg has inhibitory compounds on it that detect the genetic makeup of sperm, and these compounds will not allow non-human sperm to go through plasmogamy. These compounds also stop more than one sperm from fertilizing the egg. The speciation between humans and Homo erectus is due not to our differences in physical appearance, but rather the difference in our genetic makeup. The Neanderthals are actually more like extinct cousins than ancestors, just as modern day apes are more like distant distant cousins than ancestors. Our common ancestor, Australopithecus africanus, has also been extinct for many many years, when it's more specialized ancestors outcompeted it for food and (in the hominids's case) resources...